缔约磋商中保密义务的法律适用研究——以《中华人民共和国合同法》第43条为中心

虽然处于缔约磋商之中的当事人的保密义务来自诚实信用原则的要求,在性质上属于法定义务,但提供信息的当事人一方的保密声明,对于当事人之间的法律关系具有重要的法律意义。保密义务的范围包括商业秘密,但不限于商业秘密。判断何种信息属于需要保密的信息,必须依据相关的各种因素来综合判断。违反保密义务的法律责任包括损害赔偿、不当得利返还以及停止侵害等责任类型。     

律师在ADR业务中的保密义务

ADR(替代性争议解决方式)在近半个世纪已形成席卷全球之势,以保密制度作为其本质属性的ADR在我国也大有发展空间,然而我国律师保密制度相当不完善,很难满足ADR对律师职业的要求。在这方面,国外发达的ADR保密制度对我国有极好的借鉴意义。一、律师的保密义务有关律师的保密制度是一个内容相当广泛的领域,涉及到律师在哪些情形下对哪些信息向哪些人在何种程度上保密。在律师执业的不同领域,律师承担的保密义务是不同的。就“定纷止争”的业务来说,争议解决机制越多地体现当事人意思自治,对保密性的要求就越高,相应地,律师就要承担更多的…     

浅议刑事诉讼中律师的保密义务——以新《刑事诉讼法》第四十六条为视角

律师为了竭尽所能地维护当事人的合法权利,通常不可避免的会事无巨细的了解当事人的有关信息,因此为当事人保守秘密既是律师的权利和义务,又是律师职业道德的要求。有人认为律师有权对当事人的一切信息严格保密,有人认为律师对当事人的犯罪行为应负检举揭发义务,本文以新《刑事诉讼法》第四十六条为视角,尝试分析我国刑事诉讼中对律师保密义务的立法导向。     

论法院调解保密原则

调解保密性是现代社会法院调解程序发展的内在要求。调解保密性包括调解程序保密性和调解信息保密性。我国关于调解保密性的规定主要关注调解程序的保密性,但调解保密性更要求调解信息保密性。明确调解信息保密性的含义,合理规制＂调解保密信息＂的范围,建构多元化的调解保密适用方式,是多元化纠纷解决机制稳健运行的重要前提。     

论律师在执业中的保密特权

律师是依据当事人的委托授权，在法律规定的范围内，维护当事人合法权益的法律工作者。律师对当事人权益的有效保护很大程度取决于当事人和律师之间建立的信任关系，而这种信任关系的重要基础之一就是律师对其知晓的当事人秘密予以保密。如何将律师对当事人的保密责任法律化，使得律师和当事人之间的信任关系得到巩固，对于律师业的发展具有重要意义。     

商事案件调解保密规范解析

调解作为诉讼外争议解决方式的一种典型代表,非公开性是其最基本的程序利益,也是其广泛和成功地运用于商事争议解决的根本原因,而保密规范也因直接关涉调解的此种程序利益而为调解程序所必需。就目前调解立法以及调解机构制定的调解程序规则有关规定来看,调解保密规范主要在三个方面设置了具体规则,即:所有调解参加人都应为调解中披露的信息保守秘密;调解中披露的信息原则上不能在其他程序之中作为证据加以使用;调解不成功后的其他程序中调解员不能担任相同或相关争议的当事人的代表或律师以及仲裁员。当然,保密规范的上述要求并非绝对,原则上必须予以遵守,但允许根据公共利益的需要或者当事人的意思自治而披露有关调解信息的例外存在。     

美国证据法中的保密特权原则及其对我国证据立法的启示

知情作证乃是法律上的通常规则 ,但并非绝对规则。美国证据法为了保护某些特殊的社会关系 ,规定基于某些特殊的信赖关系 ,相关人等有权拒绝作证或阻止他人作证。这种保密特权体现了法律的价值整合。当然 ,其仅限于某些特殊领域 ,并在适用上有限制性解释。我国相关立法对保密特权作出规定也是必要的 ,因其可以牺牲个案当事人的利益为合理代价来保护某些更为重要的社会关系。     

我国公证的保密原则

在我国公证有关法规规章中，保密原则虽然字数不多，但却非常重要。随着社会的进步，人们的法律意识不断增强，当事人在办理公证过程中，除希望个人主张的事实得到法律的保障外，其办证内容不想让第三人知道的要求是完全正当的。当事人这种愿望在法律上的确认，是社会法制健全的体现。在深入宣传公证法律制度的同时，探讨公证的保密原则是非常必要的。     

美国银行对客户信息保密制度研究

本文以研究美国有关的判例法为主,分析了美国银行对客户信息保密的法律制度;银行对客户信息保密义务的性质和法理基础、银行保密义务的适用范围、宪法对银行保密的限制以及银行保密义务与信息披露义务的冲突,尤其就上述四个方面美国已经取得的经验和存在的分歧进行了深入的探讨。     

新形势下贯彻实施保密法律制度

保密工作是党和国家的一项重要工作,保密事业是中国特色社会主义事业的重要组成部分。依法治国也包括依法实施保密管理工作,当前,随着高科技的迅猛发展、国际互联网的广泛应用、经济全球化趋势的日益明显,传统的保密工作正受到巨大的冲击。如何贯彻好保密法律制度不仅是所有保密工作者深思的问题也是领导干部应该具备的一种法律思维和法律方式。     

CONFIDENTIALITY,DUE PROCESS,AND JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION IN THE UNIFIED FAMILY COURT: REPORT TO THE HONORABLE STEPHANIE DOMITROVICH

To the extent that courts realize the pure one judge–one family notion of the unified family court—in which one judge handles all domestic relations, probate, juvenile dependency, juvenile delinquency, and domestic violence cases involving members of the same family—they encounter three potential legal barriers: confidentiality of court records in some of the cases, due process issues arising from the consideration of material from a related case file in which the parties to the current case may or may not be parties, and judicial disqualification arising from the judge's handling of a previous case involving the family. This article summarizes information obtained from a survey conducted for the Children and Family Law Committee of the National Conference of State Trial Judges, of courts in sixteen states, to learn how they have resolved these legal issues.     

商事仲裁保密性探析

保密性是仲裁的显著优势,但是,由于当前立法规定的缺失及司法实践的冲突,仲裁保密性的法律地位并不明确。仲裁保密性与仲裁的不公开性不同,当事人不应认为仲裁庭审的不公开即意味着相关仲裁信息的保密。另外,保密性作为一项默示义务并非绝对,而是存在例外的。为确实实现仲裁的保密性,可以通过在仲裁立法、仲裁规则和仲裁协议中规定或约定保密义务来实现。     

IF A THREAT OF VIOLENCE IS PRESENTED,WHEN DOES THE LAW REQUIRE FAMILY MEDIATORS TO BREACH CONFIDENTIALITY?

For a family mediator to protect his client, a third party, and/or himself from unlawfully disclosing a client's admission, the family mediator should use the principles set forth in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California when a threat of violence is presented by one of his clients, since many states have adopted these principles through case law and statute to protect third parties from acts of violence. The two most significant factors in determining whether to breach confidentiality are the identifiability of the victim and the likelihood of the potential physical harm. If a jurisdiction has not explicitly done so via statute, the family mediator should nonetheless follow these principles since they are likely to be adopted by that jurisdiction through case law, because the probability of a court's finding a special relationship between a family mediator and a client is relatively high.     

California expands the duty to warn patients exposed to and infected with HIV. Reisner v. Regents of the University of California

There is still no general definitive guide for hospitals and other health care providers concerning the extent of their duty to warn third parties of a patient's HIV status. However, even in states like California that have statutorily eliminated any duty to directly inform third parties, the Reisner case clearly indicates that liability to third parties may arise indirectly based on a failure to warn HIV-exposed or -infected patients of their status and the risks of communicating the virus to others. Accordingly, health care providers should take several actions: 1. Ascertain, with the assistance of legal counsel, the precise dictates of applicable state statutes and case law regarding (a) a provider's obligation to warn HIV-exposed or -infected individuals of the potential of communicating the virus to others; (b) additional statutory requirements such as notification of public health authorities; and (c) whether notice to third parties at risk of exposure from the patient is required or even permitted. 2. Develop and implement written policies regarding notification and counseling of exposed or infected patients, including counseling patients on the risks of communicating the virus to third parties; and 3. Develop and implement written policies regarding permissive or mandatory notification and counseling of exposed or infected third parties. In this context, providers should be aware that patient confidentiality and privacy laws may prohibit disclosure of the identity of exposed or infected patients to third parties.     

司法调解的保密原则

调解保密原则的诠释，从形式上而言，调解程序保持封闭状态，即不公开进行；从实质上而言，调解程序中产生的信息将被禁止随意披露，即使是在诉讼程序中。这种诠释部分缺失于我国现有的司法调解中。司法调解保密原则的确立在于保障调解程序的安定性和诉讼的公正。但是，考虑到调解程序的安定性和诉讼程序的稳定性，司法调解的信息将被划分为“事实”信息和“行为”信息。前者被允许披露于诉讼程序中；只有后者，即调解程序中人们基于对调解的信任以自己的意愿追求某种法律效果产生的信息，将始终处于保密的范畴。     

LAWYER'S DUTY TO DISCUSS ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has been championed for its power to devise agreements that meet the parents' and the children's needs and for its ability to encourage parties to work together, eventually leading to stable agreements. The Model Rules of Professional Conduct do not create any ethical duty to advise, suggest, or encourage lawyers to discuss ADR with their domestic relations client. In the medical field, patients are given a choice of treatment under the informed consent doctrine, but there is no analogous doctrine in the legal field. The Model Rules of Professional Conduct should be revised to reflect the best interests of children, as well as client choice. Clients, specifically parents in domestic relation matters, are entitled to know their options, and lawyers should be obligated to provide them with the information that will enable them to make informed decisions–decisions that will benefit their children and ultimately our nation.     

Dilemma of confidentiality in international commercial arbitration

Arbitration is universally used in the settlement of international commercial disputes largely due to its inherent confidentiality. However, the expedient element of the confidentiality is encountering challenges mostly owing to public interest or other reasons. This article not only discusses the grounds of confidentiality in arbitration, but also the effective way of its helping those people who wish to respect the confidentiality in international commercial arbitration.     

仲裁保密性问题初探

相较于诉讼而言,同为民商事争议解决方式的仲裁有诸多诉讼无法比拟的核心优势,仲裁的保密性就是其中之一。本文首先从宏观上强调了仲裁保密是仲裁的核心优势,然后对仲裁保密性在各国不同的法律地位进行了比较研究。第三部分则是从微观层面对仲裁保密性的几对矛盾进行了分析,包括与公告送达、法院干预、公共利益的关系,并得出一般性结论。最后本文检讨了我国相关立法的漏洞和缺失,并给出了制度性设计的若干建议。     

The Need for Confidentiality in Evaluative Processes: Arbitration and Med/Arb in Family Law Cases

Arbitration, mediation/arbitration and arbitration/mediation allow parties to resolve their disputes usually more expeditiously, privately and with less cost than going to court. While confidentiality is seen as essential to the mediation process and often included in statutes, confidentiality seems less essential to a more adversarial process. Confidentiality provisions rest at the intersection between privacy and self‐determination and the protection of vulnerable parties in family law disputes. This article explores the importance of confidentiality clauses in drafting arbitration and med/arb or arb/med agreements.